Steve Dalby has a big problem. As the chief regulatory officer at Australian internet service provider iiNet Ltd. (ASX:IIN), he tells the Sydney Morning Herald that his company is struggling sustain the $3M USD a month service the government is demanding to spy on its citizens.

I. Orwellian Plan Could Cost Telecoms $3M USD a Month

Other service providers like Telstra Comp., Ltd. (ASX:TLS) are flat-out refusing to comply saying the government order to spy on everything from a user's Google Inc. (GOOG) searches to storing the numbers involved in their encrypted payments via eBay, Inc.'s (EBAY) PayPal is not only a gross invasion of privacy -- it's also likely illegal.

Security director Darren Kane told the SMH, "We cannot capture or provide any metadata or any content around something like Gmail because it is Google-owned, it is offshore and it is over the top of our network. The real value of what we might have in a data retention scheme would be greatly diminished as soon as the organised criminals and potential terrorists knew that we were not capturing that data."

But that's precisely what the Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC) wants access to full access to all user metadata, including usernames and passwords. It also wants to intercept and store copies of citizens' emails, social media chats, and text messages.

ASIC officials claim that handing ubiquitous spy powers to government regulators will help the ASIC fight "white collar crime". But collecting the information may actually create criminal opportunity, as Telstra points out. And industry officials suggest that the plan could cost up to $400M USD to put in place, plus potentially tens, if not hundreds of millions a month to maintain a full watch over users' data.

Mr. Romney expressed a viewpoint narrowly in line with the President's plugging warrantless wiretaps in an interview, stating, "If it means we have to go into a mosque to wiretap or a church, then that's exactly where we are gonna go, because we are going to do whatever it takes to protect the American people. And I hear from time to time people say, 'Hey, wait a sec, we have civil liberties to worry about', but don't forget... the most important civil liberty I expect from my government is my right to be kept alive."

Much like Australia, the U.S. is currently considering heaping a plan to sever "frequent" pirates' internet on top of the growing framework of non-transparent, warrantless surveillance methods.

In both nations the big pushback is coming from interne service providers and internet software service providers like Google.

Funny thing is that here in Europe there isn't something like "rights to bear arms" and shooting weapons is only for licensed hunters and sports (and that does not mean assault rifles and the like). Still our governments and politicians is no where near doing shit without warrants and essentially spying on people.

We also don't have accidental shootings in numbers even remotely to those in the US.

Don't make guns in every house out to be a good thing because it's not.

Two huge oceans and only two bordering nations which are friendly(-ish for Mexico) helps too.

Sorry to break it to the gun rights people who think their hunting rifles and smei-auto pseudo-assault rifles would stop a proper military but...no, they wouldn't. It might have worked through most of the 19th century but once mechanized warfare became the standard civilian guns don't mean much.

I'd like to point out that people with worse guns who are worse shots have tied us up for years and cost billions of dollars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Granted they're fighting a losing war, but they did play a major part in bleeding Russia dry in the 80's and the last decade will probably go down as one of the major causes of the failure of the US if we dont' get our act together.

Only that their guns are actual AK-47s or clones thereof and those training camps do supposedly give the people basic military training, probably similar to what was given at the eve of WW2. A similar training would be surely given to everyone and the military grade weapons distributed widely in the hypothetical case of invasion in the US.

quote: Granted they're fighting a losing war,

If "they" - that's a word with a complex meaning in this case - are fighting for the causes they are saying, they can't lose as long as there is a single breathing human being representing their culture in the area. It doesn't appear to be a war for certain areas, or strategic strong points but for existence and self-determination of groups of people, ignoring actual political terrorists.

quote: I'd like to point out that people with worse guns who are worse shots have tied us up for years and cost billions of dollars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

When you have a "leader" who does not have the word "victory" in his vernacular and follows a 1970's failed foreign policy, what do you expect? He has lost more soldiers in Afghanistan than did Bush. Whenever you tell your opponent we're leaving on X date you have FAILED BY CHOICE. War has never been a "police action" that he and his side purport it to be. In war you win it decisively, clean up the loose weapons, AND THEN send in the police force. Bush didn't and Obama certainly isn't.

So,

quote: Granted they're fighting a losing war, but they did play a major part in bleeding Russia dry in the 80's and the last decade will probably go down as one of the major causes of the failure of the US if we dont' get our act together.

The only reason we are doing very poorly right now is the incredible omission of will by our leader and not fighting a fast, to the point war with pre-defined and well-defined goals. This ideology stems from the misguided, progressive belief that a large combat force has no place in this day of civilized people.

There is no silver in war, let alone trophies for everyone. Go BIG or stay at home. War is ugly, vile, and an unfortunate reality that if not tackled in a hard and, sadly, brutal manner, don't bother.

By not following a war plan of victory you end up with governments reacting with the wrong approach shown in the story above in a world that is unnecessarily less safe than it was before.

If Obama had let the war on terror gone on auto-pilot, it would cost so much that USA would never be able to pay their debts. Training a police force and building the country would remove the foundation of taliban; give people a better life and they do not turn to religion and fanatism.

quote: When you have a "leader" who does not have the word "victory" in his vernacular and follows a 1970's failed foreign policy, what do you expect?

It was the 1970s cold war approach to conflict that has lead to the current mess. You cant defeat an insurgency with bigger tanks, more bombs, and faster planes.

quote: The only reason we are doing very poorly right now is the incredible omission of will by our leader and not fighting a fast, to the point war with pre-defined and well-defined goals.

In a way, youre right. The objectives of both wars seemed to be 'stop terr'rists'. Invading a sovereign nation, on a pretext of dodgy intelligence, that turned out to have nothing to do with 9/11 in defiance of the UNSC probably isnt the best way to go about it.

quote: This ideology stems from the misguided, progressive belief that a large combat force has no place in this day of civilized people.

Clearly a large combat force isnt the answer - or else some measure of success would have been achieved by now?

quote: There is no silver in war, let alone trophies for everyone. Go BIG or stay at home. War is ugly, vile, and an unfortunate reality that if not tackled in a hard and, sadly, brutal manner, don't bother.

Keep that up in the Middle East and the problems will continue - new generations of freedom fighters will take up arms against the invaders. This, in turn, will only flare up anti-Western sentiment. This is exactly the wrong approach to take.

quote: It was the 1970s cold war approach to conflict that has lead to the current mess. You cant defeat an insurgency with bigger tanks, more bombs, and faster planes.

You missed the point about the left's approach in 1970, they only wanted to appease the enemy at that time. Just talk to them nicely and they'll see that you a just like they are. That is what Obama's apology tour was all about. Didn't work then, will not work in my lifetime. For any such discussion to work you have to have all parties willing to work, usually that persuasion is overwhelming force or valid threat of force. You can never negotiate from a position of weakness.

quote: In a way, youre right. The objectives of both wars seemed to be 'stop terr'rists'. Invading a sovereign nation, on a pretext of dodgy intelligence, that turned out to have nothing to do with 9/11 in defiance of the UNSC probably isnt the best way to go about it.

The UN is totally useless, much like the progressives last effort the League of Nations. The problem with intelligence is that its never perfect. As far as I've heard the major European players ALL had similar, corroborating information. Saddam was a very good liar. Also, ALL of the UN declarations on Iraq were about to run out and could not be extended given the make up of the UNSC. Saddam was paying the families of suicide bombers, killing his own people, and so on. What real, that is, not with your head in the sand solution that does not rely on 20-20 hind site did you propose that nearly all of the Senate and the House fail to consider when they passed the authorization to attack.

quote: Clearly a large combat force isnt the answer - or else some measure of success would have been achieved by now?

Oh yes a large force IS the answer. The massive surge turned around the battles in Iraq. If we had gone in with double the forces, rather than the light forces pushed by those trying to shrink the military so they can spend said monies on their own pet projects we wouldn't have let the legislative branch become arm chair generals.

quote: Keep that up in the Middle East and the problems will continue - new generations of freedom fighters will take up arms against the invaders. This, in turn, will only flare up anti-Western sentiment. This is exactly the wrong approach to take.

The primary reason the problems continue is we have a leader who thinks giving in and leading from behind will win the hearts and minds of those who hate us for reasons other than what he thinks. I don't care if they like us. Respect goes further than does "liking us." Which, by the way is also at an all time low under this president.

More soldiers have died in Afghanistan under Obama's 3.5 years than the previous 6.5 years under Bush. Kicking out the bad leader in Egypt worked how well? The problem with rapid, radical, uncontrolled change, particularly while leading from behind, is that you are unable to shape the change. That doesn't mean we run said country, only that slow, consistent pressure prevents the radicals from taking over as they did in Egypt.

So, learn the history that isn't taught in school, they tend to leave a lot out.

quote: Sorry to break it to the gun rights people who think their hunting rifles and smei-auto pseudo-assault rifles would stop a proper military but...no, they wouldn't. It might have worked through most of the 19th century but once mechanized warfare became the standard civilian guns don't mean much

200 million people carrying them would certainly be a deterrent. AK47s can quickly and easily be converted to full auto. IEDs are pretty effective as well. No, the local populations wouldn't have tanks and planes, but you can see how well those have worked in Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, etc. To believe that one or two hundred million armed people would be impotent against any kind of invading force is blissful ignorance. Bring 'em on.

Actually, the guns don't make crime easier in the slightest. Not at all.

Most homes don't have weapons and therefore most criminals can get away with little worry of being shot when they break in. So they just bring a crowbar or axe, which is enough to pacify the usual cowardly American who would shit themselves literally if someone came towards them with a weapon, gun or not.

Really? Yet violent crime is worse in England. Less guns has made you less safe according to the data. You may have less firearms injuries and death but you're more likely to get raped, robbed, and beaten. I think I'll keep the guns and just be diligent my family uses them wisely. You think you're safer with less guns but the facts don't back that up.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-ord...

Thank you for posting this. I was just about to bring up that people in the U.K. and Australia are much more likely to be robbed, raped and beaten because they have made personal defense weapons (including knives) almost totally illegal.

The US constitution says all men are created equal. In god's eyes maybe.

However, as a 6'+ male, I can tell you this isn't true. Guns are equalizers, plain and simple. Gramma can take you out! and thank goodness. Protection is why historical (think old functional cultures i.e. India.) family units include grand parents. In America, this isn't the case, gramma has her own house. Guns, no one knows if you have one, are the reason.

He should also mention that a lot of that .023% are NOT accidental shootings but shootings done in homes in self defense that the various anti-gun rights organizations say are 'accidental' when they are really justified homicide or someone shooting a person to protect their home without killing them.

You got the figure wrong, it's 0.0000023% per year (the figure for unintentional gun-related deaths posted by Wikipedia).

This means ~715 deaths per year - that's even more than the average of deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan combined over last decade, and the full figure (including homicides and suicides) is considerably (= 40+ times) higher.